you know, i think the nra, gun owners of america go too far in imposing any kind of restriction on gun rights. they think you should be able to own anything in any number and carry it in any place at any time, and that i disagree with but what i would say is let's leave the constitution out this because i think that's a complicated argument as well. what i would say is if you want to infringe on liberty and say you can't do x, y or z, i think the burden of proof has to be on you for why there's a societal need for infringing on that liberty. i've looked into this because i'm sort of on the fence on the issue. i looked back at the 2008 landmark supreme court case about the handgun ban in d.c. justice breyer who was a dissenter in the case and considered a liberal justice looked at the evidence for whether a ban on handguns reducing violence and said that the upshot is a stet of studies and counterstudies that at most leave a judge uncertain about the proper policy conclusions. basically, you know, it's a very mixed bag as to whether totally eliminating guns, restricting guns actually ge